During a year the victories are rolling in favor of the Syrian army and its allies till the size of what was liberated during a year was nearly one third of the Syrian geography, more than fifty thousand square kilometers which means five times the size of Lebanon, but the crucial step in paving the way for these rolling victories was undoubtedly the liberation of the eastern of Aleppo. This step has ended the western bet on overthrowing the Syrian country, its president, and army and opened the door for the retreat of the war alliance and the beginning of its disintegration, furthermore, each of its pillars took a position of new ceiling in preparation to reach the recognition of the return of the Syrian country, its president, and its army whether through a statement or a suggestion. From that time, the battle of overthrowing the project of the continuation of chaos and its management started as an alternative of the project of overthrowing and domination. In the course of this war which was waged by Syria and its allies the American red line fell at the Syrian-Iraqi borders and the project of paving the way for the getting of ISIS out of Raqqa to the Syrian Badia fell.

Deir Al Zour was an attracting area, because from it the area of the north-east of Euphrates falls as a US operations area and from it the project of establishing an independent announced or an implicit Kurdish entity falls. These two points are not less important and may be they are more than the liberation of Aleppo strategically, as long as Aleppo is in the south-west of Euphrates, which means outside the range of the military operations which Washington restricts them with its forces and allies and outside the range of aspiration which the Kurdish leaderships deluded that they might be the borders of their own entity. The liberation of Aleppo despite its value and victory, it is a painful injury to the Americans but this can be bore with the positioning on the north-east of Euphrates under full US administration and the Kurdish secession. The arrival of the Syrian army to Deir Al Zour alone opens the door of challenge for these two projects.

The US bet was on the size of the troubles and difficulties that will accompany the achievement of this goal against the Syrian army, in addition to the presence of ISIS in Palmyra and Badia, along with a distance of hundred kilometers, and an area of thousands square kilometers, furthermore, ISIS forms a bleeding expanding wound in each of the countryside of Hama and Homs. The expectations were that the Syrian army and its allies will take at least three years to reach Deir Al Zour and lift the siege on its forces and connect with them, during this time the Americans and the Kurds will be able to eliminate ISIS in Raqqa, Deir Al Zour, and Hasaka, thus the negotiation on the federalism will be a reality, a federalism through which the Americans will be enjoyed with a cover of a Kurdish local government which they will manage. The American talk was that the year 2020 will be a date for the political solution in Syria.

The achievement of the Syrian army during ten months is closer to a military miracle, the collapse of ISIS in front of the advanced forces towards Deir Al Zour will rule what is after it, especially because the Syrian army is having control on the course of the northern Euphrates from the countryside of Raqqa to the countryside of Deir Al Zour, it will connect with the advanced forces in the south of the course towards Deir Al Zour, so maybe the battle of liberating Raqqa which was difficult for two months will be the battle of the Syrian army and the allies, especially if the Syrian army and the allies decide to resolve the two cities in Mayadeen and Boukamal before going to Raqqa. Thus the Americans have to recognize that the project of the north-east of Euphrates has fallen, and the Kurdish leadership has to hasten to reserve its seat in Geneva dialogues to participate in a political solution, which its ceiling is a unified government under the leadership of the Syrian President, new consensus constitution, and parliamentary and presidential elections.

Some people say that the stopped convoy at the outskirts of Deir Al Zour after it was deported from Qalamoun will remain there for a long time then it will surrender, since it achieved the goal by creating media exaggeration that preoccupied the Americans and their allies from following-up the crowds and the preparations for the battle of resolving Deir Al Zour by the Syrian army and Hezbollah the partner of blood and victories, the Iranian open support, and the unlimited Syrian air presence.

Expect “Israel” to try and obtain Russian diplomatic support for pressuring Iran to on Hezbollah’s post-war presence in Syria, but don’t necessarily assume that it’ll succeed.

Hezbollah swiftly defeated Daesh [Arabic acronym for “ISIS” / “ISIL”] in an effective anti-terrorist campaign coordinated with the Syrian Arab Army along the mountainous Syrian-Lebanese border. Observers were taken aback by how quickly victory was attained, as the terrorist group has hitherto put up fierce resistance elsewhere in the country. This testifies to the growing strength of Hezbollah as one of the world’s most effective anti-terrorist on-the-ground forces, as well as the relative weakening of Daesh as it approaches its dying days.

Hezbollah’s major victory against Daesh also sent strong signals to the three-headed “Cerberus” of “Israel”, the US, and Saudi Arabia that the group is a very capable of defending itself against all threats, and that its battle-hardened skills in Syria can also be used to defend their Lebanese homeland if it ever came under threat once again by those three allied actors. Consequently, this means that their subversive plans against the Resistance Arc will have to be modified since the strategy of expanding Daesh into Lebanon has clearly failed.

Looking forward, it can be expected that Hezbollah will continue to play an ever-growing role in the Mideast, having already become indispensable to Lebanon’s stability and now increasingly to Syria’s own. In response to the dismal failings of their military-terrorist proxy war against the group, Hezbollah’s enemies might attempt to win Russia’s support for their plans in exchange for diplomatic-geopolitical concessions, hoping that Moscow could in turn lean on Iran to compel it to downscale Tehran’s support for Hezbollah in a post-war Syria.

It’s unlikely that this strategy would be successful, both in terms of winning Russia’s full support for this move in the first place and in Moscow’s potential pressuring of Tehran afterwards, but it can’t be discounted that “Israel” will try to leverage its excellent relationship with Russia to these ends, especially bearing in mind that Tel Aviv’s proxy war against Hezbollah has failed and that the only possible alternative for it at this point is to broaden it into taking international diplomatic dimensions.

During the past week, it was clear the turning of the image in Lebanon at the level of the political and media positions of the parties which supported the military operation of the resistance in Juroud Arsal against Al Nusra front and their return to the hostile rhetoric against the resistance whatever the expressions changed in this turning, including the return to arouse suspicions around the credibility of the process of Juroud Arsal and showing it as a theatrical deal, ignoring the magnitude of pain which they cause and the insult which they address to their partners in the homeland. In this battle there are many Lebanese martyrs, they have rushed to protect their homeland and condoned the Lebanese positions which facilitated the positioning of terrorism and justified its presence, dealt with it, and disabled any national decision to confront it throughout the years under different pleas. Among the changing of positions after the awakening of the conscience they hid behind the slogan of supporting the army to get rid of the resistance and to question the patriotism of its premises towards ignoring half of the battle which is being waged in parallel with the battle of the Lebanese army in Juroud and which completes its goals and integrates with it, where its field is the Syrian side from the borders.

Al Sayyed Hassan Nasrollah did not hide any of the information gathered by the leadership of the resistance about the presence of direct US intervention behind this turning and the presence of separate operations order to ignore the battles of Qalamoun and to get involved in campaigns of questioning the resistance and besieging its rhetoric and the attempt to dismantle the state of sympathy around it popularly, politically, and in media during the battle of Juroud, so the best cover is to hide behind the plea of supporting the Lebanese army to say that the ability of the army has been proven, so there is no need for the resistance, or to say that the army has proven that it is capable alone to resolve, so why to coordinate with the Syrian army, or to say that the equation of army, people, and resistance has ended after the battle of Juroud, towards saying that the justification of the weapons of the resistance has fallen and the fight of Hezbollah in Syria was a Lebanese deadlock, or that Lebanon is a part of the international coalition against ISIS and every move from outside this coalition is rejected, or it is a coalition that has not granted for Lebanon any air cover or armament or logistical support that commensurate with the size of the battle. Some have threatened those who did not listen, by the prosecution of the US financial sanctions whether parties, figures and media.

Al Sayyed did not waste his time in useless debates, he talked in a language of irresistible facts, he asked first whether they were those themselves who opposed the fact that the Lebanese army is confronting the terrorism, and those themselves who were so delayed to recognize that the terrorism exists and they remained calling the terrorists revolutionaries. He said we will neglect the matter and will say that you accept that there is terrorism and that the army should be authorized to wage the battle, so is it possible to talk about security and stability if the Lebanese side has been liberated from the borders, and if we consider what was achieved by the resistance as the liberation of the Lebanese territories was by the army, so how would be the situation if he Syrian part which was occupied by the terrorism on the borders with Lebanon has not been liberated, will it be lines of contention or a war of attrition or Lebanon is concerned with liberating the Syrian part to ensure its stability and security, If it was concerned as said by any simple logic as long as the stability cannot be achieved but only by liberating the opposite sites of borders, so does that mean that Lebanon is concerned from this position to consider positively what is achieved by the Syrian army and the resistance even from the position of interest in obtaining security and stability. The reassurance by some people stems from their saying: as long as the Syrian army and the resistance are achieving what is needed so let us go to opportunism and hypocrisy by turning the back and behaving indifferently.

The question becomes if the battles continue for a military resolving which seems likely according to the words of Al Sayyed, so who will liberate Malihet Qara which is the point of borders and how? Can it be liberated without coordination between those who fight on the both sides of borders? if the negotiation was the solution and its title is deporting the militants and the solving of the issue of the kidnapped soldiers so is there a third choice in front of Lebanon other than accepting that the resistance will bear the responsibility of negotiation in order to ensure for Lebanon and the Lebanese the fate of the kidnapped soldiers and return them, because from its national position it bears this responsibility and by virtue of its fighting in Syria with the Syrian army it can coordinate to ensure implementation of any agreement that includes the withdrawal of the militants, or it can send an official request to coordinate with Syria to ensure the implementation of the withdrawal of the militants, in order to ensure the ability to negotiate to ensure the future of the fate of its kidnapped soldiers.

According to the speech of Al Sayyed, all the ways lead to the recognition that the relationship between the Lebanese army, the resistance, and the Syrian army and that the achievement which its resolving approaches militarily or by negotiation according to the facts that say were it not for what is achieved by the Lebanese army, the Lebanese people, the Syrian army, and the Syrian people along with the resistance the victory would not been achieved. If the achievement was out of this participation and its completion depended on coordination, then there is no place for virtual discussion about whether dispensing with the resistance or the relationship with Syria will achieve protection and stability to Lebanon but only in battles such as waged by the owners of this logic.